Educational Media International,

Vol. 42, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 153–159

Mind the gap! Policy issues for e-learning

proponents
Gail Marshall*
Gail Marshall & Associates, USA
0GailMarshall
Gail
00000March
Taylor
Educational &
2005
10.1080/09523980500060316
REMI106014.sgm
0952-3987
Original
International
12005
42 Marshall
and
Article Associates2393
print/1469-5790
Francis
Media
Council
Ltd
International Broadmont
for Educational
online Media CtChesterfieldMO 63017US74055.652@compuserve.com

Historical precedents continue to impact American education and current controversies in the USA suggest
that e-learning may become a focal point for the series of curriculum, culture and control wars that have been a
feature of American education for a century. Given the dominance of American commercial interests on the
World Wide Web, as well as the increasing globalisation of Web access, the influence of American models and
practices may pose a serious challenge for the maintenance of a wide range of pedagogical practices and
content.

Kümmert euch um die Lücke! Strategieüberlegungen für E-Learning Befürworter

Historische Präzedenzfälle beeinflussen weiterhin die amerikanische Erziehung und zur Zeit stattfindende
Auseinandersetzungen in den USA vermitteln den Eindruck, dass E-Learning zu einem zentralen Punkt für
eine Reihe von Curriculum-, Kultur- und Kontrollkriegen werden könnte, die schon sei einem Jahrhundert
Merkmal der amerikanischen Erziehung gewesen sind. Unter dem Eindruck der Dominanz kommerzieller
Interessen Amerikas im Internet sowie des wachsenden globalen Zugangs zum Web, könnte der Einfluss
amerikanischer Modelle und Praktiken eine ernsthafte Herausforderung für die Beibehaltung eines breiten
Spektrums pädagogischer Praktiken und Inhalte darstellen.

Attention au fossé ! Problèmes politiques pour les avocats de l’apprentissage en ligne

Les précédents historiques continuent à influencer l’enseignement américain et les controverses actuelles aux
Etats Unis permettent de penser que l’apprentissage en ligne peut devenir un foyer actif dans la série de conflits
portant sur les programmes, la culture et le pouvoir qui ont marqué l’enseignement américain depuis un siècle.
Si l’on tient compte, d’une part de la position dominante qu’occupent les intérêts commerciaux américains sur
le Web et d’autre part de la globalisation croissante de l’accès au Web,l’influence des modèles et pratiques
américains peut compromettre sérieusement le maintien d’une gamme élargie de pratiques et de contenus
pédagogiques.

Keywords: Curriculum; Policy; Standards

* Gail Marshall & Associates, 2393 Broadmont Ct., Chesterfield, MO, 63017, USA. Email: 74055.652@com-
puserve.com

ISSN 0952-3987 (print)/ISSN 1469-5790 (online)/05/020153–07

© 2005 International Council for Educational Media
DOI: 10.1080/09523980500060316
154 G. Marshall

Introduction
E-learning offers all stakeholders the promise of access to a wider range of educational materials
than ever before. But as e-learning becomes more widely recognised as an instructional resource,
especially one that broadens access and helps achieve equity, policy makers as well as developers
and consumers of e-learning will probably confront problems that challenge many Americans’
vision for schools. The curriculum wars, and the culture and control wars currently raging in the
USA may be enacted in one form or another around the globe as policy makers view American
models and debate their appropriateness in local settings, raising the question, ‘What is the best
and wisest decision for a community?’
In addition, the ways the debates are framed pose serious questions about the message deliv-
ered to children and other stakeholders. In many instances, rancor and invective instead of
reasonable debate and calm presentation of viewpoints characterise the content of some Web
sites. Such public displays of wrath are counterproductive for a society that seeks to respect the
rights of all citizens to present information is public forums and that seeks to inculcate in its young
the value of free speech as the mark of a progressive society.
Children are ill-served in two other ways: (1) the debate about what and how to teach does
not provide them with a clear view of what forms and content of learning are valuable for today
and tomorrow. The debates are not framed around the utility of learning for life in the twenty-
first century but, instead, are posed as narrow debates about two different perspectives on learn-
ing, each with merits but each with strategies and measures that are viewed with suspicion or
scorn by adherents of the opposing point of view, (2) the content of some of the Web sites
promotes points of view that are viewed as having no basis in fact. Given research by Pearson
(2002) and McFarlane (2002) on the lack of scrutiny children use when analysing Web-supplied
content, the use of the Web to promote the dissemination of ‘faulty science’ is troubling, even
given First Amendment considerations. But the purpose of this paper is not to analyse the impli-
cations of the Web-based material for ‘truth-finding’ but to present issues surrounding one
county’s public discourse that has implications for policy making worldwide.

The curriculum wars

The issue of what the best parent wants in terms of curriculum—what is taught, how it is taught
and how learning is assessed—has been controversial since the founding of America’s public
schools (Ravitch, 2000). Although history/social studies, physical education and science have
been subject to criticism, reading and mathematics instruction have most often been criticised,
and continue to roil educators, parents and policy makers.

The reading wars

The battle has long raged over phonics vs whole language approaches to reading (Kolstad &
Bardwell, 1997). Recent funding policies for reading instruction will have far-reaching effects
on all aspects of education, including e-learning, since the current reauthorisation of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act calls for a phonics approach to reading. Metcalf
(2002) points out the political roots of the decision as well as noting that (a) adherents of the
 Policy issues for e-learning proponents 155

whole language approach will be shut out of curriculum building, and (b) phonics materials tend
to neglect social, historical and environmental issues often addressed in whole language texts.
The American reading wars matter because the content and methods favored in current legis-
lation will be translated by commercial publishers into e-learning sites designed by those
publishers and other content providers. Because of increasing globalisation, other countries will
either be under pressure to adopt similar methods or will find stakeholders adopting those
methods independent of their governments’ own policies.

The math wars

The math wars have also been waged over several decades (www.nea.org). Like the reading wars,
stakeholders have joined the battle. Some opt for a ‘mathematically correct’ approach
(www.mathematicallycorrect.com) to content and pedagogy that favours drill and an emphasis
on number; others favour more problem solving and coverage of topics in addition to number—
probability and statistics, a wider range of geometry topics than Euclidean geometry and ‘real
world’ applications of mathematics (www.mathematicallysane.com).
One victim of the math wars appears to be the teaching of Logo, which has become increas-
ingly marginalised as critics question its utility for providing skills perceived necessary for the
twenty-first century workplace.
The math wars matter because the content and pedagogy provided via textbooks will also
affect content provided on Web sites sponsored by textbook publishers and other content
providers. In the case of the math wars, the debate also shows how communities, especially
parents, have become active for and against policy initiatives. The gap between parents adhering
to the ‘mathematically correct’ and the ‘mathematically sane’ approaches has grown as forums
for discussion and debate have often been reduced to rancorous invective from both sides.
Those donnybrooks may repeat themselves if similar policy wars break out in other countries.
And the problem of American dominance in the production of educational media (International
Society for Technology in Education, 2002) signals the potential ubiquity of restrictive positions
on math content and pedagogy in e-learning environments.

The testing wars

Who should be tested, what should tests measure, and how should tests be constructed and
conducted has also be the subject of controversy (English & Steffy, 2001). But recently the
debate has reached a new pitch as President George Bush has mandated annual standardised
tests for all students from Grade 3 (ages 8–9) to Grade 8 (ages 12–13). While most citizens are
not opposed to testing, the key issues of test content, the types of tests constructed and the uses
to which testing information is put have generated debate. Critics oppose the current plan
saying, ‘The new Bush testing regime emphasises minimum competence along a narrow range
of skills, with an eye toward satisfying the low end of the labour market’ (Metcalf, 2002). Propo-
nents see the tests as satisfying industry’s need for an economcally viable labour force.
Questions as to whether the current plans for testing will actually improve schools or will add
to the already high drop-out rate are frequently featured in the media, and signal a gap between
the those who believe tests will raise standards and those who believe current plans will yield
156 G. Marshall

‘teach to the test’ forms of instructions in most classrooms (Traub, 2002). Few e-learning sites
address the fundamental epistemological rationales underlying the opposing points of view and
so the discourse is debased, yielding little or no information about why the debates matter and
less information on the potential consequences of either point of view for the children, who are
after all, the ultimate consumers of e-learning.

What types of testing/assessments should be used?

Parents, key stakeholders in the plans for standardised testing programs, regard tests as only one
of the many options for determining students’ progress, and not the best option at that. Shepard
and Bleim (1995) conducted a survey of parents’ attitudes toward testing and compared those
attitudes to those of the community-at-large. A sample of third graders’ parents vs a community
sample showed that 46% of the third grade parents approved of standardised tests compared to
71% of the national sample.
But Shepard and Bleim (p. 13) showed that an even greater gap occurred between parents’
perceptions of the usefulness of standardised tests (46% approving, 18% strongly approving of
math standardised tests but 38% approving and 31% strongly approving of performance
assessments in math).
In reacting to reading assessment 47% of the third grade parents approved of standardised
tests (18% strongly approving) but 47% approved of performance assessments while 30%
strongly approved of those performance assessments.
Given the current political trends for standardised testing initiatives, the gaps signal interesting
debates ahead. The debate over testing has class/racial aspects which further complicate the solu-
tion of Standards issues (Traub, 2002). In describing the reactions of parents in high income
school districts to New York State’s new demands for standardised testing, Traub says, ‘[…] they
see in a reform whose goal is to level students up a threat to level their own students down’ (p. 78).
Such gaps have implications for e-learning insofar as providers of e-learning materials model
their content on trends for the design of standardised tests. Will parents’ perceptions or
government mandates be the model? Will models of testing and accountability adopted in
America be exported abroad via e-learning situations and, if so, what are the implications for
curriculum development and its alignment with assessment procedures? More importantly,
what are the e-learning implications for children caught in the middle of the debates when
opposing voices and not rational discourse about testing and evaluation methodologies—their
merits and drawbacks—are eschewed?

What constitutes a ‘standard’?

Another issue facing policy makers is how high the bar should be set in deciding what constitutes
adequate or satisfactory performance levels. In the U.S., schools are funded by local real prop-
erty taxes, with federal monies being spent on a variety of compensatory programs—some of
which are distributed almost automatically based in socio-economic status indices; others are
awarded on a competitive basis. Those federal monies expand or shrink depending on policies
and politics. Most recently, federal guidelines have mandated that schools deemed to be failing
to meet standards will be closed and/or significantly reorganised.
 Policy issues for e-learning proponents 157

A pressing question for many school districts, many of which do not question the need to meet
standards, is, ‘Should students in poor districts be expected to meet the average scores around
the state or should those schools be ranked by a different formula?’ (Viadero 1999). States
propose different formulae but worry about the immediate and long-term consequences of gaps
in school financing and gaps between the performance of schools in low-funded districts vs
schools in high-funded districts.
Questions about standards matter for e-learners because the content of many Web sites will
be determined by where the bar is set as commercial and even eleemosynary Web site purveyors
tend to follow the tests.

The culture and control wars

In many ways, the curriculum wars are directly related to and affected by cultures outside the
school which, in turn, affect the internal school culture. Recall Dewey’s statement about what
the best and wisest parent wants. The increasing impact of religious fundamentalism, in almost
all religious groups, has had two consequences for American schools. Recently, the number of
non-government funded schools has increased as has a trend toward home-schooling. One
result has been the proliferation of Web sites sponsored by a wide range of groups, many of
which do not participate in traditional schooling and eschew the content and values embodied
in ‘traditional schools’. While freedom of expression is a cherished value, freedom of expression
often collides with current models based on scientific reasoning.
So science teaching is an especially vulnerable target in the wars. Some states have decreed
that ‘creationist science’ must be taught in tandem with evolution; others are on record as
opposing the teaching of evolution (Skool, 1980). Web sites supporting ‘creationist science’ are
a fact of life in the e-learning environment.
The teaching of probability and statistics is also affected by the culture wars since many states
have informed educational resourcers that the use of spinners, dice and other tools of chance are
specifically forbidden by groups in several major states consuming educational materials.
Two consequences of the culture and control wars have become apparent: (1) Web sites
sponsored by ‘alternative’ approaches to traditionally accepted theories and pedagogical prac-
tices are proliferating, and (2) legislation on local and state levels mandating strict filtering of
Web sites is increasing. For example, a battle is raging over a law passed by the U.S.
Congress calling for filtering information in all school libraries (Schwartz, 2002). So, in many
school districts, access to a wide range of information and a wide range of pedagogical expe-
riences is difficult, if not impossible. E-learning, then, occurs in a narrow space instead of an
open space where many learning possibilities can challenge the learner to test, ponder and
generate ideas.
The culture and control wars matter because on the one hand we see a proliferation of Web
sites where the information may not be scientifically verifiable and on the other hand access to
relevant Web sites may be denied because of the types of filtering used.

Conclusions
In a discussion of the theoretical basis for computer-mediated environments, Dowling (1999) says:
158 G. Marshall

[…] electronically mediated environments provide a wealth of opportunities for the deliberate creation
of alternative manifestations of ourselves […] (p. 165)
But in the accumulated wars of curriculum, culture and control, the questions is, ‘Who is
‘ourselves’ and which of the many ‘ourselves’ contending for power will set the predominating
models for e-learning content and access?’ The current fluidity of Internet culture provides the
promise that for every constraint adopted, adaptations, inventions and policies will be devised
to meet a wide range of needs and interests. On the other hand, the increasing domination of
the Web by a few commercial entities controlling media suggests that what is viewed as best for
the community may be exclusionary and dominated by a one or two models of content and
process. It may be that, for many children, the Web is restricted to subscribers, true believers
and mandated modes of teaching and learning. An equally intriguing possibility is that the reac-
tions to commercialism may lead to a deschooling of the Web.
A paradox exists with respect to the current state of ‘openness of the Web’. We laud the ability
of many different groups to present their points of view on the Web. We also propose that the
Web provides e-learning opportunities unparalleled by other media. But suppose the diffusion
of many different viewpoints serves to close minds to the multiplicity of ‘truths’ existing in the
world and becomes, for some, the means of barricading themselves behind ‘a’ truth to the exclu-
sion of the examination of other points of view? How does the community at large work within
that paradoxical framework? Certainly both pathways can be seen in current Web use. The use
a country makes of the Web as it works toward e-learning options has implications beyond the
classroom as world events have dramatically illustrated.
It is also interesting that in all the controversy about what is to be taught the question of how
children learn and the issues of how children handle that learning which is of value to them, both
now and for the future, receives little attention.
So mind the current gaps between policies and aspirations, and look for each outcome in the
wars because how we deal with issues such as the paradox of open/closed is of equal importance
with (and a part of) issues of how teachers teach and how students interact, search the Web and
create their own knowledge.

Notes on contributor
Gail Marshall is a member of IFIP’s Working Group 3.5 and a frequent contributor to American
technology journals. Her articles on the implications of educational philosophy and Infor-
mation technology practice have also appeared in IFIP conference proceedings. A member
of the evaluation team of the Comprehensive School Mathematics Project (CSMP) and an
evaluator of many state, federal and foundation sponsored innovations, she holds a Ph.D.
from Washington University in St. Louis.

References
Becker, J. & Jacob, B. (2000) The politics of California school mathematics: the anti-reform of 1997–99. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(7), 527–539.
Branigan, C. (2002, March 19) Religious school seeks computer-education waiver, Eschool news online. Avail-
able online at: http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory+cfm?ArticleD=3457 (accessed 16 February
2005).
 Policy issues for e-learning proponents 159

Dewey, J. (1897, January 16) My pedagogic creed, The School Journal, 77–80.
Dowling, C. (2000) Social interactions and the construction of knowledge in a computer-mediated environment,
in: D. Watson & T. Downes (Eds) Communication and networking in education: learning in networked society:
proceedings of the IFIP TC3WG3.1/3.5 Open Conference on Communications and Networking in Education
(Boston, MA; Kluwer Academic Publishers), 165–173.
English, F. & Steffy, B. (2001) Deep curriculum alignment: creating a level playing field for all children on high-
stakes tests of educational accountability (Lanham, MD, Scarecrow Press).
International Society for Technology in Education (2002) Big three, Leading and Learning with Technology, 29,
62.
Kolstead, R. & Bardwell, J. (1997) Phonics vs whole language in the teaching of reading, Reading Improvement,
34, 154–160.
McFarlane, A. (2002) Kids and the net. Paper presented at the Working Group 3.5 Open Meeting, Manchester.
Markham, K. (1993-95-2000) Standards for student performance. Available online at: http://eric.voregon.edu/
publications/digests/digest 81.html (accessed 16 February 2005)
Metcalf, S. (2002, January 28) Reading between the lines, The Nation. Available online at: http://www.then-
ation.com (accessed 16 February 2005).
National Education Association (2001) Inside scoop: math wars. Available online at: http://www.nea.org/neato-
day/o/o5/scoop.html (accessed 16 February 2005).
Pearson, M. (2002) Online searching as apprenticeship. A paper presented at the Working Group 3.5 Open
Meeting, Manchester.
Schwartz, J. (2002, March 25) Law limiting Internet in libraries challenged, The New York Times, p. 16.
Shephard, L. & Bleim, C. (1995) An analysis of parent opinions and changes in opinions regarding standardised
tests, teacher’s information, and performance assessments. CSE Technical report 397. (Boulder, CO, University
of Colorado, CRESST).
Skogg, G. (1980) Legal issues involved in evolution vs creationism, Educational Leadership, 38, 154–156.
Traub, J. (2002, April 7) Test mess, The New York Times Magazine, 46–51, 60, 78.
Viadero, D. (1999) Setting the bar: how high? Education Week. Available online at: http://www.edweek.org/
sreports/qc99/opinion/ac/mc/mc2.htm (accessed 16 February 2005).